The microstamping requirement for semi-automatic firearms in California is bad policy but effective gun control. This is why the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), together with Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), filed a suit against the microstamping requirement in California on January 9th.
While microstamping proponents claim the policy will lead to crime prevention and aid in police investigations of firearm-related crimes, the reality is that this practice results in de facto gun control–the kind of gun control that caused Smith & Wesson to join Sturm, Ruger, & Co. in announcing they will no longer sell semi-automatic firearms in CA.
In a nutshell, miscrostamping is the placement of a fingerprint on the end of the firing pin of a semi-automatic firearm. In theory, this results in a mark traceable to that firearm–and that firearm alone–every time a bullet is fired and a shell casing ejected.
According to the NSSF, this process “is costly and time consuming” and drives up prices of manufacturing enough to “threaten the employment of thousands in the firearm industry.”
Additionally, even after all the added cost and time, microstamping does not always work. There are problems with the legibility of the marks left by microstamped firing pins, and there are questions about collecting information for a database on microstamped guns, as well.
Todd Lizotte holds the patent for microstamping technology, and even he admits that “legitimate questions exist related to both the technical aspects, production costs, and database management associated with microstamping that should be addressed before wide scale implementation is legislatively mandated.”
As California’s front-running GOP gubernatorial candidate, Tim Donnelly, told Breitbart News: “Microstamping is a highly technical way to do what they’ve been trying to do all along, which is gun control.”
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.